AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All these petitions have been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings in CC. Nos. 143 to 145 of 1991 on
the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences II), Madras. The first accused in these cases is the partnership firm
dealing in cutting tools, hand tools and general hardware items. The other accused are partners. The respondent Income Tax Officer has filed
complaints in the abovesaid cases for the offences under Sections 276-C(1), 277 and 278-B of the Income Tax Act and also under Sections 120-
B, 193, 196 and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for the concealment of the income. In C.C. No. 143/91 it is alleged that the
accused persons for the assessment year 1986-87, filed the return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 2,21,575. The Income Tax Officer
assessed the income on the basis of the statement computing the total income at Rs. 2,41,695/-. But during 1987-88, the Income Tax Officer,
suspecting the correctness of the amount, issued notice to the first accused and also their seller M/s. Addison and Company for production of their
account books for verification of the purchases. Thereafter, the accused filed the revised statement for the additional income of Rs. 4,80,420
stating that a mistake was found out in totalling the amount of M/s. Addison and Co. Ltd., and therefore they were offering the additional income of
assessment. As the assessee did not reveal the actual income for 1986-87, penalty proceedings were initiated and the complaint in CC. No.
143/91 was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II) for the abovementioned offences. Similarly for 1987-88 also,
though the return was filed declaring the income at Rs. 2,93,960/-, after the notice to the accused and M/s. Addison and Co. Ltd., the accused
persons filed the revised returns admitting an additional income of Rs. 4,18,220/-. Therefore, for this concealment also, C.C. No. 144/91 was filed
in the some Court for prosecution under the abovementioned offences apart from initiating the penalty proceedings. The accused filed the return for
1988-89, declaring a total income of Rupees 3,09,940/-. In the course of the assessment the account books were perused and it was found out
that the closing stock came to Rs. 18,84,585/- showing a difference of Rs. 9,24,449 from the closing stock mentioned in the return. The accused
filed the revised statement admitting the closing stock to the value of Rs. 18,84,585/-. For this discrepancy also, the complaint in CC. No. 145/91
was filed in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and penalty proceedings was also initiated under the Act. It is to quash these
three cases, against the accused person, these petitions have been filed invoking the inherent powers of the High Court.
The six partners in the partnership firm have filed the petitions 4165, 4162, 4168, 4171, 4174. 4177 and 4180 of 1991 to quash the
proceedings in CC. No. 143/91, petitions Nos. 4166, 4163, 4169, 4172, 4175, 4178 and 4181 of 1991 have been filed to quash the
proceedings in CC. No. 144 of 1991 and petitions Nos. 4167, 4164, 4170, 4173, 4176, 4177 and 4182 of 1992 are to quash the proceedings in
CC. No. 145/91. In all these petitions, the grounds urged for quashing the proceedings are common. In the petitions, they have stated that their
accountant by name Jeevaraj D. Vohra was maintaining the accounts of the firm but suddely he expired on 17-2-1986 that therefore they found it
difficult to finalise their accounts and the son of the previous Accountant had taken over the post of account that with little experience, he prepered
the accounts for the submission of the returns, that therefore mistakes had occurred in the totalling of the purchases from M/s. Addison and Co.
Ltd. and on account of this mistake the discrepancy had occurred. They have further stated that when this mistake was found out later in 1989,
they filed the revised returns for 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 voluntarily disclosing the correct income and therefore there was no intention to
cheat the exchequer by concealing their income, that as they revealed the income voluntarily by filing the revised returns, they filed the writ petition
W.P. No. 3952 of 1991 in this Court for forbearing the respondent Income Tax Officer from filing a complaint and also sought for interim
injunction restraining him from filing a complaint, that the discrepancy in the account was a bona fide mistake, to the complaints against them will
amount to abuse of process of Court that further, all the partners are not incharge of the affairs of the firm and therefore the complaints are not
maintainable against all of them. So, on these grounds, the petitioners sought for quashing the proceedings. Even though interim injunction was
passed in the above writ petition, the complaints were filed even before the filing of the writ petition. Subsequent to the filing of these petitions, the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has quashed the penalty proceedings accepting the contention of the petitioners, that the discrepancy in the income
is a bona fide mistake in totalling the amount. Therefore, now the main ground in these petitions for quashing the proceedings, is the order of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal setting aside the penalty proceedings.
Therefore the two points that were urged for determination are 1) whether all the petitioners were not in charge of the firm so that they could not
be prosecuted and 2) whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal setting aside the penalty proceedings will exonerate the accused
persons from the criminal proceedings initiated against them before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras.
The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mani contended that it is not specifically illeged in the complaint that the accused persons 2 to 7 are
in actual administration of the first accused firm and therefore all of them cannot be prosecuted and the prosecutions against the partners of the first
accused have to be quashed. He draws support from the decisions in Puran Devi v. KLAR, ITO (1988) 169 ITR 608 and K. Subramanyam Vs.
Income Tax Officer, for his argument. In the first decision, it is held that only the person or he partner, who was in charge and was responsible in
the firm for the conduct of its business at the time of the alleged offence is liable for the commission of the offence. In the later decision, this Court
has held that nothing was alleged against the petitioner who was the third accused in that case that he was responsible for the conduct of the
business of the firm and therefore the criminal proceedings against him was liable to be quashed. But the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.
Ramasamy contended that in these three complaints against, the petitioners, specific allegation has been made against all the accused, that in
paragraph six of the compliant, it is mentioned that the second accused had signed the balance sheet and other statements, that in paragraph 4, it is
specifically mentioned that accused Nos. 2 to 7, who are the partners of the first accused firm, were in charge and were responsible for the
conduct of the business of the first accused firm during the relevant period and in paragraph 7, it is mentioned that the 4th accused filed the revised
return and in paragraphs 8 and 9 also it is specifically mentioned that all the accused conspired to prepare false statements by inserting the credit in
the name of M/s. Addison and Co. Ltd. and they all delivered the false return to the Income Tax Officer and therefore all the partners are liable to
be punished and when there are such specific allegations against all the partners in the above mentioned paragraphs, the complaints are
maintainable against these accused persons. In the abovementioned paragraphs, specific allegations have been made against all the accused
partners. When it is alleged that all of them had conspired together to inflate the credit bills of M/s. Addison and Co. Ltd. it cannot be stated that
all the partners were not in charge of the administration of the firm. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner
deserves to be rejected.
The second contention is the most vital and important argument of this case. The Income Tax Officer imposed the penalty for the concealment of
the income during the year 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. On appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 119, 120 and
121/MDS/91 dated 20-11-1992, the Tribunal has found that there was no concalment of the income, that mistake in the account was unknown to
the partners of the firm, that as it was a bona fide mistake, it was not possible to hold that there was concealment of income on this finding the
penalties imposed on the assessees were cancelled. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the order of the Tribunal contends that the
fact finding authority under the Act, viz., the Tribunal, itself has held that the mistake in the account was not known to the partners of the firm, the
criminal Court going against this finding of the Tribunal cannot attribute mens rea alleging fabrication of the accounts and therefore the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners have to be quashed.
Before I refer to the case laws relied upon by both sides, I would mention the argument of Mr. R. Ramswamy, learned counsel for the
respondent, that the criminal proceedings under the Income Tax Act is kept outside the purview of the penalty proceedings as they are dealt with in
different chapters indicating their independent operation and Sections 276-C and 277 of the Income Tax Act, which are the prosecuting provisions
before the competent Court, have nothing to do with Section 271(1)(c) of the same Act, which is for imposing penalty by the authority under the
Act and Section 271 of the Act has no overriding affect on the penal sections of the Act as they are operating independently and when ingredients
of the offence is alleged in the complaint for the violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, it is for the Court to enquire and examine the
witnesses to find out whether the offence alleged in the complaint was made out or not and therefore the enquiry u/s 271-C by the authority under
the Act for imposing the penalty cannot come in the way of the proceedings before the Court and the findings of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal will not have any bearing to the prosecution of these petitions. Mr. Ramaswmy, learned counsel for the respondent, further contended that
in the proceedings before the authorities under the Act u/s 271, they simply consider the question whether penalty is leviable or not taking into
consideration of the representations placed in papers without any evidence for the allegations made against the assessee, but in the case of the
criminal prosecution, the Court thoroughly considers the charges levelled against the accused person by examining the witnesses and the elaborate
evidence before the Court is analysed by the Court to find out whether the offence was made out by the prosecution and therefore without
submitting to the test to be done by the Court with regard to the charges against the assessees, they cannot escape the criminal prosecution by the
order of the Tribunal, which is confining, itself only for the penalty and therefore two independent functions, one by the authorities under the Act
and the other by the Court functioning outside the purview of the Income Tax Act, have their independent findings on the matters before them and
therefore the finding of the authority under the act will not bind the judicial proceedings of the Court. On this basis Mr. Ramaswmy would contend
that these petitions are not sustainable and have to be dismissed. It is true that in K.A. Khaja Vs. Sixth Income Tax Officer, , Arunachalam, J., has
held that without sufficansnt prima facie allegations in a complaint regainst the accused person the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be
exercised to stultify the prosecution that can be initiated for the offences under Sections 276-C and 277 of the Income Tax Act. The learned Judge
has taken the same view in another case in P.N. Subramaniam and others Vs. P.C. Chadaga, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, . In that
case also, the learned Judge has observed that when it is disclosed in the complaint that the two accused persons, who were partners of the first
accused firm, conspired along with the other accused to wilfully evade tax, defraud the exchequer of its legitimate revenue and deceive the
concerned Income Tax Officer by fabricating false evidence in the form of books of accounts with false entries, those allegations were sufficient
prima facie to proceed with the enquiry against the accused persons and the complaint cannot be quashed u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.
In Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. G. Dhanamani, , Pratap Singh, J. has held that the criminal Court has to judge the case independently on the
eivdence before it and when the allegation in the complaint contain ingredients of the offence illeged against the accused person for which the
complaint was launched, the prosecution cannot be quashed. In Smt. Chand Dhawan Vs. Jawahar Lal and others, the apex Court has observed
that when the allegations in the complaint prima facie constitute the offence alleged and the Magistrate being satisfied on the statement and the
evidence of the witnesses examined and materials on record that cognizance should be taken, the accused cannot invoke Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. Therefore, from the view of these decisions, the criminal Court has to find out whether the
allegations in the complaint are adequate to disclose the commission of the offence for the enquiry of the offence. But the peculiar circumstance in
this case is the authority under the Income Tax Act, viz. the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has found that there was no concealment of income by
these petitioners as they were not aware of the mistake in the return and the discrepancy in the return of assessment was a bona fide mistake.
Therefore, the question is whether this finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal will have a bearing to the criminal proceedings pending before
the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II) Madras. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even though the criminal Court
has its independence in the enquiry regarding the offences alleged in the complaint, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be completely ignored by the
Criminal Court, as the Tribunals are fact finding authorities and a question of fact that was answered by the Tribunal has to be respected by the
criminal Court and therefore the criminal Court cannot take a different view on the same question of fact even though the enquiry may be
independent. The learned counsel relies upon the observation of the Supreme Court in Patnaik and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Orissa, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact finding authority under Act and that the Court has no
jurisdiction to go behind the statements of facts made by the Tribunal in its separate order. That was a case in which the appellant, which dealt in
automobiles and spare parts, had subscribed to certain Government loans, sustained a loss in the business and had claimed that the loss was a
revenue loss. The Tribunal found that the loss suffered by the appellant on the sale of the investment was a revenue loss. On a reference to the High
Court, the High Court held that as the investment was not connected with the orders placed by the Government, it was not a loss of the revenue
but was only capital loss. In that connection, the Supreme Court observes :
......... We think the High Court fell into serious error in doing so. It is now well settled that the Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority
under the Income Tax Act and that the Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the statements of fact made by the Tribunal in its appellate order.
The Court may do so only if there is no evidence to support them or the Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in arriving at the findings of
fact. But even there, the Court cannot disturb the findings of fact given by the Appellate Tribunal unless challenge is directed specifically by a
question framed in a reference against the validity of the impugned findings of fact on the ground that there is no evidence to support them or they
are the result of a misdirection in law ....
From the above expression of the Supreme Court it has to be accepted that the finding of a fact given by the Tribunal has to be respected by the
Court unless the Court takes the view that the Tribunal had erred in law in arriving at the findings of a fact. Otherwise the conclusion of the question
of fact cannot be disturbed by the Court. Bearing this principle posited by the Supreme Court, the question involved in this case can be carefully
approached.
There is no argument before me that the Tribunal had erred in arriving at a conclusion, that the mistake in the assessment was not known to the
partners of the firm. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a consistent view that when the authority under the Act has set aside the
penalty proceedings, the complaint against the assessee before the criminal Court for the same allegation, is not sustainable. In Parkash Chand Vs.
Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, , the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that when the Income Tax authorities has held that there was no
proof for the concealment of income or that the assessee had furnished an accurate particulars and thereby cancelled the penalty, the criminal
proceedings against the assessee for the offence of concealment of income cannot be allowed to continue. The same High Court in BASAL TOOL
CO. AND OTHERS Vs. Income Tax OFFICER, DISTRICT-II(I), PATIALA, has repeated that when the Commissioner (Appeals) had found
that there was no concealment of income and has set aside the order of the Income Tax Officer imposing the penalty, there was no wilful attempt
to evade tax by the assessee and therefore the prosecution of the assessee was not justified. Yet in another case in D.N. Bhasin and Another Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has again repeated the same finding that the finding of the Income Tax
authorities in the assessment proceedings are ralevant and the criminal Court is required to act upon them and therefore when the Commissioner
(Appeals) deleted the addition of income accepting the original return filed by the assessee, the criminal Court cannot find him guilty for submitting
the false returns and therefore the proceedings before the criminal Court was liable to be quashed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also has taken
the same view in M. Murali Mohan Vs. State (Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda), ,. In that case, the assessed had introduced fictitious purchases of
yarn in the books and the Incomes-tax Officer made additions to the income on the ground of suppression of the income. A complaint was lodged
against the assessee under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act and sections 193 and 196 Indian Penal Code. But the Assistant
Appellate Commissioner set aside the order of the Income Tax Officer cancelling the additions when the matter was taken up before the Andhra
Pradesh High Court, it was held that when the assessment itself was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it could not be said that
the assessment still continued in the eye of law and when the assessment itself was not in existence, the question of maintaining the prosecution did
not arise and therefore the proceedings were liable to be quashed. In addition to these views of the two High Courts, which are direct on the point,
the Supreme Court also has taken the same view in Uttam Chand and Others Vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar, . Even though the
facts were not discussed; the Supreme Court in its cryptic order has observed that in view of the findings recorded by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, that it was clear on the appraisal of the entire material on record that Shrimati Janak Rani was a partner of the assessee-firm and that the
firm was a genuine firm, the assessee cannot be prosecuted for filing false returns, and accordingly allowed appeal and quashed the prosecution. It
appears from the head-notes of that case that a partnership firm was registered under the Income Tax Act and assessment was made on the
partnership firm. In 1969-70, one of the alleged partners by name Smt Janak Rani sent a statement to the Income Tax Officer stating that she was
not a partner of the firm and she did not sign in the partnership agreement. Therefore, on the basis of the statement of the said Smt. Janak Rani, the
Income Tax Officer cancelled the assessment as the particulars furnished for the registration of the firm were incorrect and criminal proceedings
also were initiated against the other partners for having filed false returns as though Janak Rani also was a partner of the firm. But in the appeal
before the Tribunal, it was held that the partner, who gave the statement to the effect that she had not signed the agreement, was really a partner
and therefore the firm was genuine. The Criminal Proceedings against the partners went up to Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has made
the above observation holding that in view of the Tribunal''s findings that Janak Rani also was a partner, the criminal proceedings against other
partners was not sustainable.
One more decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is S. VAIDYANATHAN, Income Tax OFFICER Vs. DR. B.
MATHURAM AND SONS AND OTHERS., which is a decision of this Court. In that case, as the assessment order was set aside by the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while the complaint was pending before the Magistrate, the learned Judge has observed that the complaint
had become objectless and without any basis and therefore the Income Tax Officer might withdraw the complaint with permission to file it again if
the circumstances warranted it. The learned Judge felt that as the Commissioner of Income Tax had set aside the penalty proceedings and
remanded the matter, the complaint on the allegation of suppression of income was without any basis and therefore the Income Tax Officer, may
file the complaint after the final position of the authorities under the Act. From the direction given by him to withdraw the complaint, he has
expressed the view that weight must be given by the criminal Court for the order of the Tribunal. Therefore based on these views of the different
High Courts and the Supreme Court, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaints against the petitioners before the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate have to be quashed. To counter act the above argument, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.
Ramaswamy has cited a few decision which I am referring below. In S.R. Arulprakasam Vs. Prema Malini Vasan, Income Tax Officer, Central
Circle-XV, Madras, , this Court has held that the filing of the revised return will not exonerate the criminal proceedings and penalty proceedings
against the assessee. In that case, the assessee himself filed a revised return after the concealment had been detected by the Income Tax Officer
and then proceedings were initiated against him and before the criminal Court he contended that the revised return filed by him disclosing the entire
income should be accepted and it would wipe out the criminal proceedings against him. In that connection, S. A. Kadar, J, has observed that the
filing of the revised return will not exonerate the contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee and criminal proceedings and penalty
proceedings can be initiated against him. This decision does not touch upon the point in controversy with regard to the weight to be given for the
findings of the Tribunal. The next decision R.N. Bajaj Vs. K. Govindan, Income Tax Officer, , also is not on the point as it deals with the proposal
of the assessee for settlement with regard to the quantum of concealment and on that basis, the assessee questioned the prosecution, which was
rejected. Therefore, that decision has no bearing on point in controversy. The third decision cited by the learned counsel Mr. Ramaswamy is
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi and Others Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, wherein a transporter brought goods into the municipal
territory without payment of the terminal tax and when penalty was imposed by the taxing authority under the Municipal Corporation Act, it was
questionsd that without a prosecution having been filed before a competent Court, penalty could that be imposed by the taxing authority. The
Supreme Court rejecting that contention held that the taxing authority had jurisdiction to levy penalty even without initiating any prosecution. This
decision also has no bearing on the point. Another decision relied by Mr. Ramaswamy is Gujarat Travancore Agency, Cochin Vs. Commissioner
of Income Tax, Kerala, Ernakulam, This decision of the Supreme Court also is not touching upon the point in controversy. That was a case in
which return of Income Tax was not filed within the statutory period and therefore penalty proceedings were initiated by the Income Tax Officer.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal setting aside the penalty on the ground that as the element of means rea was required to be
proved for want of delay in filing the return and that was not proved in that case, penalty could not be levied. The matter was referred to Kerala
High Court which held that for Section 271(1), of the Income Tax Act, no means rea is required for imposing penalty and therefore the order of
the Tribunal was not correct and was liable to be set aside. When this matter was taken up before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court cited a
statement in Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 85, page 580, paragraph 1023, with approval, as follows :
A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or
a fine of forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal laws.
Accrodingly, the Supreme Court held that the confirmation of mens rea was not required to be proved in the proceedings taken by the Income Tax
Officer u/s 271(1), of the Income Tax Act against the assessee,. The point considered in that decision was whether the criminal intention of the
assesses has to be proved for imposing penalty under the Act. Therefore, that decision also has nothing to do with the point in issue. Another
decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Income Tax department is Universal Supply Corporation and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan
and Another, a decision of Rajasthan High Court. The employer therein had deducted the tax at course but did not deposit it within the prescribed
time. Hence complaint was filed against the employer for prosecution under Sections 276-B and 278-B. The accused contended that no penalty
proceedings were initiated and as it was thought by the department that it was not proper to initiate penalty proceedings against him, launching of
criminal proceedings against him would amount to abuse of process of the Court. In that connection, the Rajasthan High Court has held that non
initiation of penalty proceedings is not a bar for the prosecution of the employer. While rejecting the contention of the employer therein, the
Rajasthan High Court has referred to a decision in Banwarilal Satyanarain and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, , wherein the Bihar High
Court has taken a view that where an assessee has succeeded in providing good and sufficient reasons for his failure, before an authority under the
Act in a penalty proceedings, the process of the Criminal Court should not be allowed to be abused in such cases. Therefore, even though the
decision of the Rajasthan High Court does not relate to the point in controversy, the decision of the Bihar High Court referred to therein is a view
against the contention taken by the learned counsel Mr. Ramaswamy. Yet two other decisions viz. K.A. Khaja Vs. Sixth Income Tax Officer, and
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. G. Dhanamani, have been already referred to by me and those decisions deal only with the prima facie
allegations in the complaint for the purpose of prosecution of the assessee and the findings of the authorities under the Income Tax Act were not
dealt with as there was no occasion for that situation. Therefore, those decisions also are not in any way helpful to the learned counsel for the
respondent. Finally the last decision cited by him in P. Jayappan Vs. S.K. Perumal, First Income Tax Officer, Tuticorin, , It that case also, there
was no finding by the Tribunal or any other authority under the Income Tax Act but as the assessment proceedings were pending enquiry, a
contention was raised for quashing the prosecution in the criminal Court for the offences under Sections 276-C and 277 Income Tax Act and 193
and 196 Indian Penal Code. For the sole reason that the assessment proceedings were pending before the authorities under the Act and that the
assessee had a fair chance of success, he sought the criminal prosecution to be quashed. For the above contention, the Supreme Court has held
that there is no provision that the prosecution cannot be launched until assessment proceedings were completed and in the criminal proceedings the
ingredients of the offences have to be established to continue the prosecution. While disposing of this appeal, the Supreme Court has made certain
observations which are very much relevant for this case. The observations are as follows :
........ A mere expectation of success in some proceeding in appeal or reference under the Act cannot come in the way of the institution of the
criminal proceedings under Ss. 276 C and 277 of the Act. In the criminal case all the ingredients of the offence in question have to be established in
order to secure the conviction of the accused. The criminal Court no doubt has to give due regard to the result of any proceeding under the Act
having a bearing on the question in issue and in an appropriate case it may drop the proceedings passed under the Act. It does not, however, mean
that the result of a proceeding under the Act would be binding on the criminal Court. The criminal Court has to judge the case independently on the
evidence placed before it. Otherwise, there is a danger of a contention being advanced that whenever an assessee or any other person liable under
the Act had failed to convince the authorities in the proceedings under the Act that he has not deliberately made any false statement or that he has
not fabricated any material evidence, the conviction of such person should invariably follow in the criminal Court .....
The learned counsel Mr. K. Ramaswamy referring to the above observation would contend that in the view of the Supreme Court the criminal
Court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it and the result of the proceedings under the Act will not be binding the
criminal Court and therefore from this proposition set out by the Supreme Court, there cannot be any difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that the
finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the petitioners cannot stand in the way of the criminal prosecution of these petitioners and
therefore these petitions are liable to be dismissed. Even though the Supreme Court has made the observation that the result of the procsedings
under the Act is not binding on the criminal Court and the Criminal Court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it a
rider also is provided expressing that the criminal Court no doubt has to give due regard to the result of any proceedings under the Act, having a
bearing on the question in issue and in an appropriate case, it may drop the proceedings in the light of an order passed under that Act. Therefore, it
cannot be treated that every finding of the authorities under the Income Tax Act had to be disregarded and ignored for the criminal prosecution.
On the other hand, due regard must be given and in the appropriate cases, the criminal prosecution has to be dropped. Therefore in the deserving
cases, the criminal Court has to give weight to the findings of the authorities under the Income Tax Act and it is not in all cases to ignore the
conclusions of the Tribunal.
So the question arises in which matters the criminal Court may disregard the findings of the authorities under the Income Tax Act and in which
matters weight has to be given for such findings In this connection, I have to refer to the view of the Supreme Court in Patnaik and Co. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa, , which I referred to above. The Supreme Court has accepted that the findings of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal on the fact are final and the Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the statement of fact made by the tribunal. Therefore the criminal Court
is bound to accept the findings of the tribunal, on the question of fact. The Tribunal in its order has held that the assessees did not attempt to
conceal the amount as they themselves produced the registers for verification and that the person who made the mistake viz. the accountant was
dead and therefore the mistake in the return was unknown to the partners of the firm making it as a bona fide mistake. In the view of the Tribunal,
the partners were not aware of the mistaks in the return of assessment as the returns were prepared by the in-experienced accountant after the
death of the previous accountant who wrote the accounts. In my considered view as the Tribunal has concluded that the mistak was not known to
the partners, this finding on fact has to be accepted by the Court which deals with the criminal prosecution of the petitioners.
The learned counsel Mr. Ramaswamy contended that if the findings by the Tribunal in this case has to be accepted by the Criminal Court, the
same principle has to be followed if the Tribunal confirms the penalty proceedings in which case the accused persons before the criminal Court are
bound to plead guilty in view of the findings of the tribunal, but such things will not happen because the criminal Court has to independently try the
case and therefore the finding of the tribunal which is favorable to the assessee cannot be binding upon the criminal Court. When the Tribunal in the
penalty proceedings gives a finding against the assessee, who is facing the criminal prosecution, he cannot be convicted on the basis of the findings
of the Tribunal because the criminal Court has to follow the procedural law for trying an offender according to the Code and therefore the Court
cannot deviate from the Code for the reason that a finding has been arrived at by the authorities under the Income Tax Act. Only on account of
such a situation, the criminal Court is expected to try the case independently according to the code. But the facts found by the Tribunal in favour of
the assessee cannot be disturbed by the Court as the Appellate Tribunal is the fact finding authority under the Income Tax Act as held by the
Supreme Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel Mr. Ramaswamy will not prevail and the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner have to be accepted.
In view of the reasons given above, on the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the prosecutions against the petitioners cannot be
allowed to continue and they are liable to be quashed. In the result, the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 143 to 145 of 1991 before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Madras, are quashed. The petitions are allowed.
Petitions allowed.